“An Inconvenient Truth”, which was presented by Al Gore, discussed Global Warming. He says that it’s a vital issue and should be dealt with. In addition, some people liked the movie but others have disagreed with the content. I’m going to talk about the two points of view.
There are arguments in favor of the movie. An important argument is that we have only ten years to avoid a big disaster which can make the weather change and extreme weather can happen immediately. If the weather changes there will be floods and many other disasters because of melting ice. Another thing is that this movie shows Al Gore’s obligation to make people think again about their environment, (rottentomatoes.com). Finally, people say that the movie motivates individuals to start taking action. Don’t wait for any political rules to start thinking.
Nevertheless, there are arguments against the movie. First, the movie is always giving the most disastrous situation. The movie says that the ice sheet of Greenland and Arctic will melt very fast and sea levels will increase 20 ft. Gregg East brook(slate.com) says that the newest studies show the sea level to increase only 2-3 inches during this century. Another counterargument is that the movie contains slightly creative film making. Last, the movie used information based on incomplete research. A current study says that 130,000 years ago the sea levels were higher by several meters than today.
In conclusion, although it can be seen that arguments for and against the movie are both strong, I feel that the arguments for the movie are a little stronger. I think that the evidence Al Gore gave is enough for us to realize that we are having a serious problem and we should act to solve it.
Bibliography
1) "An Inconvenient Truth (2006)." 2 May. 2009 .
2) Easterbrook, Gregg. "Ask Mr. Science: The moral flaws of Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth." 2 May. 2009 .
No comments:
Post a Comment